Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Node Level Confusion.
Vhaeyne
Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
I re-watched both episodes of the Four-Part Node Series from eight years ago yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMvubbX-SHg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HChA1Kkfk
I did this because, in a recent stream, one of the devs mentioned that Jundark is intended to be a level 50 zone, and that mobs there are currently scaled down for testing purposes.
This raised a major red flag for me. My understanding of the node system was that mobs would scale with the node’s level—not that zones would be permanently locked to specific level ranges.
Introducing static high-level and low-level zones feels like a complete derailment of the game’s core philosophy: that players shape the world. A static level 50 zone doesn’t align with that vision.
I get it—it’s been eight years. Maybe Intrepid has changed its definition of what a node is. But to me, all nodes should begin as level 1–10 areas, and increase by 10-level increments per node stage, up to level 50. That’s what always made sense to me.
If they’re moving toward static level zones, I don’t like it. Mid- and low-level nodes would never be able to compete with endgame zones in terms of relevance or player engagement.
Am I wrong? Did the dev misspeak?
What’s actually real here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMvubbX-SHghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HChA1KkfkI did this because, in a recent stream, one of the devs mentioned that Jundark is intended to be a level 50 zone, and that mobs there are currently scaled down for testing purposes.
This raised a major red flag for me. My understanding of the node system was that mobs would scale with the node’s level—not that zones would be permanently locked to specific level ranges.
Introducing static high-level and low-level zones feels like a complete derailment of the game’s core philosophy: that players shape the world. A static level 50 zone doesn’t align with that vision.
I get it—it’s been eight years. Maybe Intrepid has changed its definition of what a node is. But to me, all nodes should begin as level 1–10 areas, and increase by 10-level increments per node stage, up to level 50. That’s what always made sense to me.
If they’re moving toward static level zones, I don’t like it. Mid- and low-level nodes would never be able to compete with endgame zones in terms of relevance or player engagement.
Am I wrong? Did the dev misspeak?
What’s actually real here?
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
9
Comments
If we only have one Divine Gateway at the moment and they're testing progression paths, it would make sense. Our lack of other Gateways wouldn't represent the final ideal either, so it wouldn't be weird to build a progression 'from Gateway Outward' during this time.
I agree! This probably is just going to be a high level zone for testing. I would assume once they get the dynamic mob spawns online it will change what level everything is.
But here is a question…. Is the whole world going to be low level mobs till you level the nodes up? This seems like a pain too if you level in one area and then want to travel to a more secluded node then need to level all that zone up as well.
I'm honestly sick of dealing with assumptions.
In this case, it's a big deal because, at best, they're temporarily developing the game in a direction that makes me less interested in the project—and at worst, they're permanently destroying the appeal of the node system.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
valid concern!
i want a dev that can answer that question to do it pls.
Some naval/pirate based guilds might want a large city by the sea
Some pve players might want a want a specific dungeon or raid boss unlocked
Some pvp players might want a military node to be a level 6, especially if it is in a region near a castle.
There is enough personal desires already to have node conflicts. We don't need it forced upon us by limiting where people are allowed to make their home
Is this another one of Steven's constant need to put conflict into everything? Is this driving the notion that the starting area nodes in the Riverlands must be sacked first before Jundark can even be built?
As Op pointed out, the Jundark nodes will never be able to compete with the rest of the world. Because of the Vasseling system, a lot of nodes will have to crumble before you ever see a level 5 or 6 node in the Jundark. Again, that's unnatural forced conflict and not organic player-driven conflict.
I'm tired of the constant drive to make everything have conflict when conflict will happen regardless based upon the needs and desires of the players on the server. We don't need forced conflict in every designed system.
Yeah…
I have noticed an uptick in developer responses on the forums. Maybe things aren’t as in vain as they used to be.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
Thank you for the bump. I am hopeful we get some detailed clarification on this soon. Maybe today in the Q&A for the live stream?
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
Did they mean the Jundark node (there are probably more than one), or zone? I think it is more important that the define what they mean by node / zone / area when they mention these things.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Zones_and_progression
On the Wiki from Steven:
We don’t have a strictly level 25 zone. Instead, that zone might have some level 10 creatures near the road, some level 20 creatures deep in the forest, and some level 30 creatures up the mountain. These ratios will change based on the Nodes that inform them, becoming generally more dangerous as the Node grows. All this civilization attracts the attention of Things-That-Should-Not-Be. This does not mean that wilderness areas are safe, by any means. Some may be safe-er, but all will have dangers that even the most experienced traveler needs to watch out for.[6] – Steven Sharif
I think you are right I just want to confirm lol. The wiki still saying that does give me hope.
It would be a slight let-down compared to a completely fluid map, but as long as the rest of the map can still shape flexibly and become important as more players go there, it might be an acceptable trade-off between design-feasibility, unique quest-influenced story locations, and player-impact.
I'd prefer it if everything was player-influenced, but this counter-example is roughly the limit of compromise I'd be willing to deal with.
They could also announce it to be temporary for the first 1-3 years after publishing, if they maintain the modular framework as the basis of the system, and work on making the system even more flexible once the game releases.
That said, if they just give up on node levelling shaping the world (in ways that reshape where different kinds of gameplay happen), I'd be kinda done with the game, and I hope they understand that that's not a compromise they can make. Find another investor instead, if that's the limiting factor; abandoning your promises is not an option.
If the nodes aren’t equally compelling, then the vision of a player-driven world across multiple servers risks falling apart before it even begins.
Players naturally gravitate toward optimal choices. If certain nodes are inherently better—whether due to location, resources, or narrative significance—they’ll become the obvious picks, and the rest may end up largely ignored. At that point, it’s no longer about meaningful player choice—it’s about the meta.
If there are plans to anchor specific nodes, I hope the team considers ways to balance that carefully—perhaps through resource scarcity, increased development costs, or other trade-offs—to preserve the broader vision.
That said, I’d personally prefer to see all zones designed with equal potential. I understand it’s a significant amount of work, but so was designing unique outfits for every race. That commitment to extra effort “to make the game better” is part of what sets this project apart—and I think ensuring a fair and flexible node system is even more crucial to its long-term success.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
There has to be some level design for zones, closer zones to the starting points should be early zones with some high level dungeons/zones (if nodes are leveled up) and the further one can be more challenging. The point is that nodes should unlock some additional dungeons/spots/routes, not just purely change level of some goblins or plants or undeads. I don't find game exciting if it will just change mob levels in Remnants of Sephilon. Instead it should unlock some mausoleum or crypt that is mini dungeon with much better mobs. That should be the way intrepid should take.
Jundark should be higher level zone, but not max level zone. It should contain mobs like 15-30 and if some nodes level up it should also have some 30-50 mobs in these unlocked areas. I don't like the idea that most of the world is open for us (or at least for Alpha). It should have more smaller spots for 1-4 people and the bigger zones like Oakenbane Keep or Tower of Carphine should be either story arc open for 1-2 days or opened when some nodes level up to level 3-4+.
For now we got huge zones but barely any interesting spots to farm. Riverlands have like 7-8 decent spots to group up for, with this map size there should be waaaay more options. I don't like the idea that the only decent group content are the PoI's. You won't find anything besides these PoI's on the map.
You keep bringing player driven world argument, but what is the point of making player driven goblins level 40 or 50 instead of level 10? Higher level content shouldn't be on the open space, especially on these early zones. You want new players to find out that close to Winstead there are 50 level ravens one shotting everyone? Will you farm these ravens? Probably no, so whats the point of doing such things? Leveled up Winstead should open some new options for Citadel of the Steel Bloom or some new dungeon/spots north of the city.
There is no point to make Jundark level 1-10 if you can easily make these first 10-20 levels in both Riverlands and Desert. These zones are designed to be starting routes and it should stay like that.
Every node should have like 2-3 options to upgrade some specific PoI's or unlock completely new ones that are not seen on the map. That will still be huge player driven choices, but not game breaking for newer people. On top of that map indicators should be more in-depth and we should see some visible changes to these PoI markers that there is something special to explore. No one will run to every spot just to see if something opened up every time node level up. That's just my opinion.
You're always welcome to your opinion, but I think there may be a few misunderstandings about what I’m saying.
There are already starting zones—Lion’s Hold, the Anvils (coming soon), and more. These areas act as static, low-level nodes. They’re not very large, but they’re enough to get players to the point where they can handle level 10 mobs near the roads in active nodes.
I don't think that most goblins would just remain goblins and scale up in level. The design was that goblins would be replaced by stronger enemies—like trolls or ogres—as nodes level up. This was part of the original design intent. If you’re curious, I recommend watching the two videos from the “Four-Part Node Series.”
To my knowledge no one is asking for level 50 ravens one-shotting players in town. The intended idea is that stronger mobs would appear the farther you venture from roads and towns. And honestly, regular overworld mobs aren’t even the central concern—they could stay low-level near towns and roads. What matters more is that points of interest (POIs) and Underrealm content scale appropriately. Keeping overworld mobs low-level around major travel paths would actually be a good thing—it helps low-level players progress and settle in any node.
When I bring up a "player-driven world," it’s not meant as a debating point—it is the core selling point of this game. There are plenty of more complete MMORPGs without player-driven worlds already on the market. What sets Ashes of Creation apart is that promise. Without it, Ashes risks becoming just another forgettable Kickstarter MMO.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
You make a good point. I agree that the mob level shouldn’t just increase and that the higher level content should unlock through dungeons. What would happen to lower level zone nodes though? How will you keep people invested in those zones when they out level the area and need to run 20+ minutes to get back and forth from the leveling spot and their home node. I just don’t see how you can’t have 1-50 content in every biom. Maybe you could get away with 2 or three zones with this level of content but anything further than that and the areas that have low level content will just die.
One of my major complaints is the information flow from the devs to the testers. Any shifts in design should be communicated, that's if we were actual testers. In truth we're just early adopters.
I hope there won't be any permanent level 50 zones or any static zones really, just the starting areas need to be static to get the players to 10, then they venture out. That would be a big shift on the planned design. Maybe they could be doing this to make it a contested area to build a Node? I don't see this being needed and completely against the planned design.
There are the people that bought access to the beta doing bulk testing, then there are most likely friends and family / invite only testers doing targeted testing, then there will be in house testing where developers test out what they have worked on to make sure it isn't completely broken.
@ELWOW
’d like to add and improve your response. Right now, the game you're playing is still far from its final version. Major features like the node vassal system have yet to be implemented, and they will have a significant impact on node development.
When a node reaches level 3, it locks progression for nearby nodes, preventing them from also reaching level 3. Only this one node will benefit from the perks of that stage. Later, when the main node gathers enough experience to reach level 4, the neighboring node with the most XP will be promoted to level 3, while others will remain at lower stages (2, 1, or 0).
This is the core of the vassalization system.
This setup ensures that new players will always find places to level, with appropriate NPCs, quests, and progression paths, regardless of when they join the game.
Keep in mind that you’re testing an Alpha version, and the current gameplay is not representative of what the dev team truly intends. What you see now is mostly due to temporary limitations or choices made specifically for this testing phase.
To back this up, here are some official sources:
🎥 Node simulation video
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/images/c/c7/NodeSimulation.mp4#t=0,100
📊 Node progression and structure over time
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_stages#/media/File:SSLivestream-2022-08-26-1:06:51.09.png
📚 Official explanation of the vassal node system
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Vassal_nodes
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Zones_and_progression
Upon deep review of that page, I have not found a clear answer to my question.
While Steven has confirmed that all nodes start at "level 0" and progress, there is nothing stating that "level 0" is the same "level 0" for each node when it comes to mob levels.
This is what’s so frustrating—it was never even a question that nodes could have different base level ranges until the penultimate livestream.
I am grateful you took the time to reply, but the question lives on.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
You won't have 1-50 content in every biom because you won't have that many higher level nodes everywhere. What gonna bring people to lower level nodes? Option to be mayors of this so every node will probably have one or two guilds controlling them and trying to ruin other node so they can level up above their neighbour that blocks them. It's intrepid job to motivate smaller/medium guilds to control ANYTHING so they will have motivation to grind up smaller nodes instead of fighting for big ones. Also these nodes should be some quest hubs where you can actually level up besides Lion's Hold and Samia's Hope. That's why I don't understand that they make alot of NPC quest givers out in the wilds, they should be connected to some lower tier nodes, they can even wander through nodes daily and just have some caravans outside of the node with quest givers. Idk, there is alot of possibilities to make these nodes viable.
It's not that every node should be a level 1–50 node—it's that every node should have the same potential. Obviously, different points of interest and resources will exist in each node, and that alone will already be difficult to balance.
Without equal level range potential for non-starting nodes, a meta will inevitably form around which nodes are optimal at specific levels. I worry that no one will want to invest in raising certain nodes, which reduces player friction and incentives to fight—ultimately going against the core vision of the game.
Think about how often MMORPGs have promised us "meaningful choices," only for a clear meta to emerge before or shortly after launch. Personally, I love meaningful choices, but in practice they often boil down to one option being slightly more optimal—making it the only choice in the eyes of most players.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
New World was great example that every node mattered (not the early days tho). I just think that in AoC there is too many of them and there will be for sure some dead nodes. The thing is that not every node should be equal and thats the whole point. Some nodes should be more attractive to catch around leveling players and some should be good spots for endgame locations. People will fight for these the most. I don't like the idea of 1-50 in single biom, there might be some spots for most levels because of node influence, but they shouldn't be optimized for 1-50 content. Closer to spawn point nodes should be lower level nodes with some dungeons for endgame (like Carphin size), but they shouldn't be an option until at least level 5 node unlock in this area. People need to move, travel, look around so they can find their best spot. If there will be option to go 1-50 in single node believe me, most people will stick to that and after maxing out they will explore or quit of boredom. Thats why games like GW2/WoW etc. had limited options and were moving people around so they know the game, get into the lore etc. I am worried that intrepid will go full sandbox on this and there will be 0 lore/story quests etc. We will get only kill 10 bears quests from the town boards. There is a place for meaningful choices and there is some space for shaping the world instead of forcing pure freedom, it will only make things worse. There needs to be some recommended level areas and both continent should contain 1-50 content. For example we had starting zones which is Riverlands and the Anvils + their subzones (Desert for the riverlands and I don't remember the 2nd option for Anvils) should be 1-25 content with some node development as addition (for example once one node close to Carphin hits level 4 or 5 there is some new place in the tower where you can find level 35 or level 40 mobs for example). Jundark/Turqouise Sea/Badlands/Underrealm should be like 15-50 oriented even if the nodes there are not yet developed. There is also a way to gatekeep the early leveling and make 40-50 connected with node systems and until we don't develop nodes to level 5-6 there won't be any 40-50 place to level up. I would like this idea as well. Thats just my concept of player driven world, we can decide which part of the continent will be our endgame content. Unlocking level 6 nodes should be big so endgame content should be connected to this.
I think we just have fundamentally different priorities for what Ashes should be, and that’s okay.
You’re concerned the game might lean too hard into sandbox design—I’m more worried it won’t lean far enough. Personally, I’d be thrilled if they ditched most of the scripted story elements and leaned fully into a true player-driven experience, more like EVE Online on foot.
Ashes is going to be a niche game no matter what. The gamers who crave story, exploration, and hand-crafted lore already have tons of high-quality options. I doubt Ashes will pull many of them away from titles that already do that better.
Where I think Ashes has the strongest potential is in appealing to PvX sandbox players who want long-term investment and systems that create emergent gameplay. That’s the crowd that won’t get bored—just look at how EVE has endured for decades by staying true to its niche. It’s not mainstream, but it’s still thriving.
I agree node balance matters, but I see it more as a tool for emergent gameplay than as something that needs strict leveling ranges or developer-shaped hotspots. To me, a well-designed sandbox can outlast a sandpark if players are truly shaping the world.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.